Think Wink.

I said it back in October that KU was an untested team that did not belong in the BCS top ten. Tonight, MU proved me right. After this incredible night, MU beat KU 36-28 in Arrowhead here in KC. Here is a recap of the game. Next up on MU’s plate, revenge from their trip to Norman, Oklahoma.

Thoughts in Light of 9/11

Oh Wow…What am I thinking?

My New Word

I came a cross an interesting post today from noted NT scholar, Ben Witherington III (BW3), entitled “For God so loved Himself?” Is God a Narcissist? In this post he critiques an unnamed NT theology book whose central thesis is that the theme of the NT is “God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.” I haven’t read this yet so I can’t offer any critiques of either this book or Witherington’s response. But BW3 argues in this post that this self-adulating the idea of God conflicts with God’s love. I strongly disagree with BW3’s position on the relationship between God’s love and glory. But before I could take the time to write up my own critique of BW3’s post, Dr. Denny Burk wrote a response entitled Witherington’s Critique of Schreiner’s NT Theology. I really liked the critique of BW3.

More Time with LDS

No Doctrine But Love?

God’s Glory and BW3

Well, I want to get this down while I am thinking about it and have some time today and wrap up my brief stint in Malachi 1:2-3 as I revisit my earlier position on the love/hate idiom found here and quoted by Paul. In Part 1, I defended the Reformed understanding of hating Esau as just that, hatred by God toward Esau from the Psalms (specifically Psalm 45:7). In Part 2, I introduced the new line of understanding for the Hebrew term sane’/μισέω (LXX) in Malachi 1:2-3 from Malachi 2:16 and the prophet’s use of the word there as a term for covenant rejection, either a covenant or the object of the covenant. Malachi 1:2-3 LXX is nearly identical to Romans 9:13 in the Greek. Malachi 1:2-3, “I loved Jacob but Esau I hated” (ἠγάπησα τὸν Ιακωβ τὸν δὲ Ησαυ ἐμίσησα); Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα). So there is very little significance to be seen in light of grammatical construction (One thing that can be seen is Paul’s emphasis on Jacob being loved in placing τὸν Ἰακὼβ before the verb; where as Malachi emphasizes Yahweh loving Jacob by placing the verb ἠγάπησα first). So the question becomes, does Paul see Malachi as saying loved less or does he see Malachi saying that God hated Esau and/or rejected him as part of the covenant?

Well, let us look at Paul’s flow of thought in Romans 9:1-13 (a Greek version can be found here but I will follow the ESV). Paul has just concluded his brilliant argument for the perseverance of the believer in Romans 8. But the terms he applies to this mainly Gentile church in Rome are terms that were used of Israel in the Old Testament. Also the perseverance of the Gentiles in faith to salvation eternity were applied to Israel on the national level, the perseverance of the throne of David and the nation of Israel under David’s reign. Thus questions would arise about Israel, and one can see that in Romans 9:1-2 as Paul is expressing heart-wrenching emotions after such wonderful preaching on God’s love being unable to become separated from his people. But the reason why this is tears at his heart is found in Romans 9:3, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed (ἀνάθεμα) and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Now Paul understands ἀνάθεμα in terms of 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). Our Lord, come!” or Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα).” In the Old Testament it was used to denote objects set apart to Yahweh for destruction. So the Jews have been set apart by God for destruction and it is killing Paul that this is so! Why is Paul so upset when he is the apostle to the Gentiles? Romans 9:4-5 show every reason why they should not have rejected Messiah and become ἀνάθεμα.

So why are the Jews ἀνάθεμα? Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Physical lineage that can be traced to Abraham does not make one a child of Abraham. Paul illustrates this with two Old Testament illustrations. First is Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was older and therefore should have received the blessing God gave to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3 and Genesis 15. But God promised to supernaturally give Abraham through the barren womb of Sarah, thus making Isaac the child of promise because he was born of a promise by God (Romans 9:8-9). But to further push Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” he turns to Jacob and Esau. Unlike Isaac and Ishmael who had different mothers, Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah. Same parents, same birthday. Yet before they were born or did anything to cause God to choose one over the other, God chose Esau to become the servant of Jacob so that God’s electing purpose might stand on the basis of himself, rather on the works of Jacob and Esau. Thus Paul is stating that the reason that the Jews are ἀνάθεμα and, as Romans 9:6 puts it, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” is because God did not choose all of Israel to be the true Israel! To further cement this Jacob/Esau illustration, Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This quotation is the source of much debate, especially in understanding the verb ἐμίσησα. Does it mean hate as in intense hostility due to anger or does it just mean loved less? Here is a post from Theology for the Masses defending this position, as the author gives quite a bit of textual evidence for this to be so. It is impressive to say the least.

However, as I have argued in the Psalms, hatred in the hostility due to anger is a perfectly suitable meaning to sane’ as a term and in Malachi 1:2-3. Also, Malachi 1:2-3 signifies that Esau was rejected in terms of the covenant. Now in Malachi, the flow of thought is that from God’s rejection of and hatred towards Esau comes the laying to waste and preventing them from rebuilding, etc. Does Paul mean for his quote to mean that God hated Esau or that God rejected Esau in terms of covenant?

I want to argue both! In regards to covenant rejection, look at how Romans 9:1-13 develops. One was chosen, Isaac and Jacob, one wasn’t chosen, Ishmael and Esau, and thus rejected by God. Isaac and Jacob were heirs to the promised covenant made with Abraham, their father/grandfather. Thus some Jews, like the Eleven and Paul, are chosen as Israel while other Jews are rejected. The word of God still stands because the blessings and promises weren’t made to those Jews whom God rejected; but rather to those who God has chosen to receive salvation through Christ. So God could have “loved less” by rejecting Esau for the covenant, and the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 isn’t weakened at all, but stands.

In regards to intense hostility, look at how Jacob/Esau parallels mercy/hardening in Romans 9:18 and vessels of common use/vessels of mercy in Romans 9:21 and the vessels of wrath/mercy in Romans 9:22-23. Pharaoh being hardened is a reshaping of Esau being hated. The vessel of common use is a reshaping Pharaoh, as well as the vessel of wrath. And consider Romans 9:22, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” God desires to make his wrath known. It is his will and plan to demonstrate his wrath, and therefore vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction. Esau fits this bill, especially when one reads Malachi 1:3-4. Thus this hostility is definitely in Paul’s mind, along with covenant rejection. It isn’t either/or but both/and.

So what about this whole debate of “hated” vs. “loved less”? It seems to me, upon reflecting upon Malachi 1:2-3, Psalm 45:7, Hebrews 1:9, and Romans 9:13, that this debate isn’t needed. The Arminian, in arguing for “loved less,” is forced to argue semantics that doesn’t help his/her argument. In the post linked above at Theology for the Masses, the author reaches the conclusion that Esau was rejected by God for the covenant. But this does not undermine the Reformed understanding, but rather bolsters it. God rejected Esau for the covenant, but this changes not God’s basis upon which he rejected Esau and favored Jacob (namely his own electing purpose; Romans 9:11). This position by Arminians says nothing of their disjointed approach to Romans 9; 9:1-13 is about nations, 9:14-16 is individuals, 9:17-18 is about nations, 9:19-24 is about individuals, 9:25-29 is nations, 9:30-33 is individuals or nations. It does not create a smooth flow in Paul’s thought. If you don’t believe me that Arminians do this, read Dave Hunt’s book What Love is This? or Norm Geisler’s book, Chosen but Free (Moderate Calvinism is an Arminian trying to sound like a Calvinist).

So in summary of this three part mini-series on Malachi 1:2-3 and its use by Paul in Romans 9:13 I have argued thus: first, the term sane’ can and does mean in Malachi 1:2-3 God has intense hostility due to anger towards Esau; second, that sane’ can and does mean that God rejected Esau for the covenant promised and made with Abraham in Malachi 1:2-3; thirdly, that Paul has both meanings in view in his use of Malachi 1:2-3 in Romans 9:13; fourth, that for Arminians to focus on semantics and say that God did not “hate” Esau (intense hostility due to anger) but rather rejected him for covenant has not only failed to undermine the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 but actually bolstered the Calvinist’s understanding of it. Thus to focus on “loved less” vs. “hated” does not really help this debate all that much and only proves that the Arminian position cannot provide a clear and concise exegesis of Romans 9, but will argue moot points in order to attempt to fight a losing battle in exegesis.

“Loved More/Loved Less” Vs. “Loved/Hated”

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 1

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 2

…can change the meaning of a sentence significantly. Mormonism has changed The Salt Lake Tribune has reported the following change of “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians,” from,After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

James White offers his two cents on this recent event (this is also where I found the link to the article on the change) here. The question is, how major of a shift is this change?

Why I am a Calvinist, pt. 2

John 3:16 Part 4

Paul and Original Sin

Laying in bed this morning I couldn’t sleep so I decided to write up the second part of my discussion of Malachi’s use of the Hebrew word sane’ (μισέω in the LXX) and whether or not it means “loved less” or actually refers to an intense hostility toward something or someone out of fear or anger. In the previous post, I argued from the Psalms (chiefly Psalm 45:7) that God really does have intense hostility toward wicked people. It is his character to show that hatred toward wickedness, and thus toward wicked people (Psalm 11:5; 5:5). Thus in Malachi 1:3 where God is said to “hate” Esau, who is a wicked people that God is angry (which is part of the definition of hate) with forever and has laid waste to their nation and will not let them rebuild, he really means hate. In this post, I want to examine how Malachi uses sane’/μισέω and his understanding of the term. For I do admit that Malachi’s prophecy was written several hundred years after many of the Psalms and other Old Testament books. The word’s meaning may have changed.

sane’ occurs only one other time in Malachi, Malachi 2:16 (μισέω also occurs in Malachi 2:13 LXX [RE:Greek doesn’t have LXX up right now, sorry]). However there is some debate as to what is the pronoun that functions as the subject of sane’ in Malachi 2:16. There are two main ways this text is rendered: “‘For I hate divorce,’ ays the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘and him who covers his garment with wrong,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously’” (Malachi 2:16 NASB; see also NLT, NKJV, TNIV). The other way of rendering Malachi 2:16 is how the ESV and HCSB render it, “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless” (Malachi 2:16 ESV; both the ESV and HCSB footnote the forementioned rendering).

Now in both cases, the meaning of the passage is clear. In Malachi 2:10-16 is speaking of marrying and divorcing for personal gain and not the reason why God had ordained the marital covenant. In 2:11 the prophet speaks of being “married [to] the daughter of a foreign god.” This seems to refer to marrying outside the covenant people with Moabite women and their god Chemash. Malachi 2:12 offers a stern reprimand for the man who does this, that he be cut off from the covenant people of “Jacob” or Israel. But Malachi’s charge against the people is not finished. In Malachi 2:13 we read, “And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.” God no longer accepts the offerings of the people of Judea. Malachi 2:14 asks the question of why. We read in Malachi 2:14 the answer, “Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” The Israelite men have been unfaithful to “the wife of your youth.” They have not been faithful to their covenant with their wife. Malachi continues in 2:15, “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God (lit. the one) seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.” Some see a veiled reference to Abraham and Hagar in this verse. If so, the point would be not to seek children by circumventing God’s plans, namely the promised child through Sarah. That this text points to Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah seems a bit of a stretch, but the point does still stand. God will provide children in his own time. These men seem to marry one woman and divorce her if she did not bear him children. Children were a sign of God’s blessing and a sign of status (cf. Psalm 127:3-7). Thus the marriages were for self-gain, not the God-ordained purpose of marriage, to raise “Godly seed.” Hence when we come to Malachi 2:16, either translation works to communicate the ban on divorce. The first option is more forceful, Yahweh hates divorce. The second says the same thing, only with less force, don’t hate your wife and divorce her for that is covering your garment with violence! To hate and divorce is to violence in the eyes of God. It seems to not only be a form of adultery to Jesus, but murder as well.

Now for the meaning of sane’. If we take the first option found in the NASB, NKJV/KJV, NLT, NIV/TNIV, the meaning of sane’ follows that of the one discussed in part one of this series, intense hostility due to anger. God is angered by divorce and he is hostile towards divorce. In light of this rendering, we could not say that “God loves divorce less,” for that would destroy the force of the reading. The point that Yahweh is making through Malachi is that he does not want his people to engage in the activity of divorce! Yet to render sane’ as “love less” would put the okay upon this destruction action. No hate means hate in this text if we follow this rendering of sane’.

Do we follow the rendering of the ESV and HCSB? I think there is good reason to do so. Notice one theme in Malachi 2:13-16, faithlessness to the marriage covenant. The men made a covenant with their wives before Yahweh as their witness. Divorcing their wives in seeking children for their own personal gain is viewed as covenant unfaithfulness. Malachi 2:16, according to the ESV and HCSB, puts hating and divorcing on the same plane. They are the same action, so to speak. Both are seen in this rendering as rejecting the wife for her barrenness. One is from the affections, the other is in legal action. One stems and flows from the other, divorce flows from hate. Thus sane’ takes on covenantal meaning in Malachi. To hate is to reject the covenant, or even a person for a covenant relationship.

Does this translate into Malachi 1:2-3 and “Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated”? The NET translation seems to render sane’ and ‘ahab this way, “Yet I chose Jacob and rejected Esau.” The NET is most notable for its translation notes and here is the note on Malachi 1:2-3 and this sentence, “tn Heb “and I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated.” The context indicates this is technical covenant vocabulary in which “love” and “hate” are synonymous with “choose” and “reject” respectively (see Deuteronomy 7:8; Jeremiah 31:3; Hosea 3:1; Hosea 9:15; Hosea 11:1).” There seems to be good evidence to see Malachi as understanding sane’ as a covenant term of rejection as much as intense hostility due to anger.

In the final post, I want to come back to Romans 9:13 and see if either one of these possibilities fits his understanding and argument for Romans 9:6 as to why the Jews are anathema in Romans 9:3.

“Loved More/Loved Less” Vs. “Loved/Hated”

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 1

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 3

Since I started reading the epistle to the Hebrews last month, I have been extremely blessed by God. I am convinced that the main thrust of that epistle is to declare the glory of Christ through showing how much more greater Christ is over against the Jewish temple cult. I had stumbled across Hebrews 1:9 which reads, “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” What struck me was this line in Hebrews 1:9, “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.” The Greek of this text reads, ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν. I reads almost identical to Romans 9:13, τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” The verbs are nearly identical except Hebrews 1:9 is second person aorist where as Romans 9:13 is first person aorist.

What stuck out to me was this an amazing text to back up the idea that Paul meant hate in Romans 9:13 where as many Arminians will say that hate means “love less.” The term in Romans 9:13 and Hebrews 1:9 is most commonly translated as hate in Greek. Hebrews 1:9 is a direct quote of the LXX of Psalm 45:7 (44:8 in the LXX), ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν. The Greek term μισέω is also used in Psalm 5:5 and Psalm 11:5 to echo the same thing as Psalm 45:7. It is even the same verb used in Malachi 1:3, “and Esau I hated.”

So as I was checking out how all of this came together, Romans 9:13, Hebrews 1:9, Psalm 45:7, Malachi 1:2-3, I decided to explore how Malachi used sane’ or μισέω in his prophecy. The Hebrew verb is in Malachi 2:16 and the Greek verb is in Malachi 2:13, 16. There it is very difficult to tell how to read the Hebrew, especially 2:15. But the context is one of covenant fidelity in a marriage. sane’ could be used to indicate rejection of the covenant or rejection of the one whom the covenant was made with.

I noticed two things in all of these instances: sane’ means hate, as in an intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury or an extreme dislike or antipathy; or sane’ means rejection in the language of covenant relationship. The questions then become what did Malachi mean, and does this convey itself in Paul’s usage?

As I stated above, Psalm 45:7 is quoted in Hebrews 1:9. In that Psalm, the psalmist declares that God loves righteousness and hates (watisane’) wickedness. Sane’ is contrasted against God’s love (‘ahavta). Here the most natural reading of (watisena’) is that God hates or has the intense hostility and aversion deriving from anger or sense of injury. The idea of watisena’ meaning “loved less” here wouldn’t work. Otherwise one would have to say that God loves wickedness less than righteousness, but he still loves wickedness. That would contradict God’s character. Psalm 97:10 says, “O you who love the Lord, hate evil!” Is the Psalmist saying here, love evil less than Yahweh? That doesn’t fit the text! The Psalmist says to hate it, to show intense hostility and anger at it.

Look at Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate (sana’ta) all evildoers,” and Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates (san’ah) the wicked and the one who loves violence.” One could argue for the “loved less” but this would go against Psalm 45:7. God hates wickedness. The people spoken of as being objects of God’s hate are wicked. Hence David says God’s soul hates them. In Psalm 26:1-2 David pleads for God to vindicate him. Beginning in Psalm 26:3, David gives the ground for why God should vindicate him. Psalm 26:5 says that David “hates” the wicked and will not sit with evildoers.

What is amazing about Psalm 5:5, 11:5, 26:5 is that they are grounded by Psalm 45:7 and 97:10. God hates wickedness (Psalm 45:7) and therefore we who love God must hate it as well (Psalm 97:10). Because God hates wickedness, he hates those who practice wickedness and are evildoers (Psalm 5:5; Psalm 11:5) and therefore we must hate those who are evil and practice wickedness (Psalm 26:5). But what we do see in the Psalms, before we turn to Malachi 1:1-5, is that God hates wickedness and those who practice wickedness.

Now let us turn to Malachi 1:1-5 and this hotly debated passage. Malachi has a unique writing style in that there is a statement made, then a question asked by the people, then God’s answer and rebuke to the people comes. So in Malachi 1:2, God declares that he loves the Post-exilic Israelites. They ask in return the question of how? How has God loved them? His answer to compare Israel to Edom. “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” (Malachi 1:2-3). Then God explains how he hates Esau. First, God says, “I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” Second, “They may build, but I will tear down.” Then they will be known as two things, “the wicked country” and “the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.” This fits the definition of hatred given by the dictionary above. God is showing intense hostility towards the Edomites in that he destroyed their country and is leaving them in a state of moral decay and he is resting his anger upon them forever. Hate is the perfect definition of God’s disposition to the Edomites. To say that God loves Edom less is not keeping in with God’s actions and attitudes towards Edom. He really does hate them in Malachi 1:3-4.

In the next post, we will look more closely with how Malachi uses שָׂנֵ֣א/μισέω in his own prophecy.

“Loved More/Loved Less” Vs. “Loved/Hated”

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 2

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 3

Look at Revelation 1:4-5 where John greets the readers of the seven churches of Asia Minor, “Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.” Now I want us to just look at the rich symbolism as it relates to the Temple and the Trinity.

First, let us see the Trinity in this text. First, “from him who is and who was and is to come.” The Greek for “who is” is ὁ ὢν. This is the same phrase found in the Memorial name found in the LXX of Exodus 3:14, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, “I am the one who is.” The expression “the one who comes” ὁ ἐρχόμενος is also found in Psalm 118:26 LXX. So what we see in this expression “him who is and who was and who is to come” an unalterable noun that refers to Yahweh, κύριος. John does not abandon his Hebrew origins and allegiances. Second is “from the seven spirits who are before the his throne.” In his vision found in Zechariah 4, the prophet sees, “a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it, and seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it” (Zechariah 4:2). Then when the prophet inquired of the angel what or who this was the angel said, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts” (Zechariah 4:6). The lampstand, with its seven lamps and seven lips, is the Holy Spirit. The use of seven is also of note in Revelation 1:4 as it is the second time the number is used. The number seven stands for perfection and divine activity (the creation week is seven days). Thus the seven spirits refer to the perfect divine Spirit, the Holy Spirit (it is of note that the Holy Spirit is not referred to anywhere in the Revelation as the Holy Spirit). Third, “from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.” The second person of the Trinity, who John believes to be God revealed in the flesh (cf. John 1:1-18). He is the Christ, the Jewish Messiah who the Old Testament Scriptures refer to over and over again as Yahweh incarnate in the flesh. Jesus is the witness who is faithful (ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός: the Greek is emphatic at this point). Jesus is the firstborn of the dead, the one who God raised from the grave on the third day and exalted him to the right hand of the Father. Jesus is ruler of the kings of the earth, the supreme sovereign over all nations and kings by virtue of his death and glorification. All three persons of the Trinity are present in the greeting.

But do notice the order in which they come. We say that the Father is the first person, the Son (Jesus) is the second, and the Spirit is the third person. Here we have Father, Spirit, Son. And we see the Father on his throne, “Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his [the one who is and who was and who is to come] throne.” The Father sits upon the throne of all creation. The Holy Spirit stands before the Father. But if the imagery from Zechariah 4 holds, and I think it does, then we see the Holy Spirit as the Lamp before the Father. This scene strikingly resembles the scene in the Temple with the Menorah shining forth its light before the mercy seat where the Father is seated. And we see Christ, the third person mentioned, on the altar of the Temple, slain for sin and propitiating the wrath of God for the sins of his people (cf. Revelation 1:5; 5:9-10).

This image was given to me by Dr. Simon J. Kistemaker, Professor of New Testament, Emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary. But we see in this image the path to the Father. First we must die at the altar with Christ, being freed from the wrath of God against our sin and given a righteousness that will enable us to stand before God spotless and righteous by his perfect standards. Then we enter the temple and walk behind the inner veil where the Menorah that is the Holy Spirit is burning bright to illuminate our minds to see the Father reigning in all of his splendor and beauty between the wings of the cherubim.

Oh the infinite depths of the Scriptures and their meaning. I echo the doxology of Revelation 1:5-7 in praise of my great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13), “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

Jesus and AD 70

The End For Which God Created The World

Did Jesus actually suffer on the Cross as God?

Yesterday I began the audio reading of Jonathan Edwards Religious Affections. The following is a quote from a discussion of 1 Peter 1:8 where the apostle writes, “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory.” Edwards writes,

He that has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion.

Amen and amen!

Islam, the Pope, and the Christian Response

V-Tech Massacre

Morning Workout: Dr. Meredith Kline

John Piper’s new book, The Future of Justification is now available to read on-line at his website in a PDF format. I have just finished reading through the introductory material and the first chapter and I must say, this is going to be a good book. The sense I have thus far is that Piper really wants the reader to weigh out both sides of the debate and prayerfully and through careful study of Scripture, choose who is most correct. The part that really excited me about this book is the following excerpt from the introductory material,

Most significant of all was the feedback I received from N. T. Wright. He wrote an 11,000-word response to my first draft that was very helpful in clarifying issues and (I hope) preventing distortions.

Piper admits that this book is for the more academic audience and not for the common layperson sitting in the pews of a church. For those who want to understand more about the debate of the New Perspective on Paul (a.k.a. NPP) from the traditional Reformed view, check this out. Remember it is free if you read the PDF. If it is good enough, I’ll probably buy the book (This is one of the good things I like about reading through the on-line version. I can sample as much of the book I need to before I decide to pay for it. This is how I decided to get What Jesus Demands from the World. I read about twelve chapters from his website and felt I needed to have the book in hand to study what it said more in-depth.)

An Excerpt from “The Future of Justification”

Force Unleashed!

Liberalism, Jesus, and Eschatology

One of the many ways that the Scriptures speak to us today is through literature. The biblical authors employ literary devices to make the text come alive in a unique way. Psalm 119, as well as other Psalms, use a literary device called an acrostic, in which a series of verses begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet: alef, bet, gimmel, etc. Each section can be remembered by the letter for which it begins with. It would be very helpful in memorizing and reading the text. The prophet Nahum does a similar thing in Nahum 1:2-6, but the acrostic is broken, which further reinforces his message of judgment and the shattering of the created order by that judgment.

There is a literary device that the prophet uses in Nahum 1:2-2:7 in which he speaks of a city or nation without cluing the reader into the identity of this city/nation that is to be destroyed by God’s wrath. In doing so, it gives a “If the shoe fits, where it” feel to the text so that Nahum’s Hebrew readers will not get too over confident in their safety. It forces them to examine their city/nation to see if they fit that bill.

But compare a functional/dynamic equivalent translation of this passage (click here for TNIV or NIV) with a formal equivalent translation of this passage (click here for NASB). You will observe that in the literal, word-for-word, translation of the NASB that the name of the city is omitted by the translators, staying true to the wording of the text. But both the NIV and its update TNIV both in Nahum 1:7 and elsewhere name the city as Nineveh (the Hebrew identifies the city as Nineveh in Nahum 2:8) to clue in the modern reader who it is that the prophet is speaking of, true to the philosophy that these translations hold to.

My question is this: does the NIV/TNIV ruin the literary effect and the intent of the author in omitting the name of the city when these translations do, in fact, give the reader the name of that city a whole chapter before the Hebrew does? Or more simply do these translations really preserve the thought of the author by “jumping the gun,” so to speak, on the name of the city? By not naming the city much suspense in created in the mind of a reader by wanting to know who it is he is speaking of, my enemy or myself. The question begs to be answered, who? So for any translation buffs out there, was it a good idea to supply the name of the city (as seen in the more dynamic/functional translations) at the cost of a literary effect (preserved by the more formal, word-for-word/literal translations)?

I Really Like This One

Why I prefer the ESV and formal equivalent translations

John 3:16